1You can't compare the nba to a regular goods market. An iPad has a single market value because each one is identical. Basketball players aren't identical, and there's much debate about how to correctly value players.

2. R.c. Buford would never pay demar 9 mil, regardless of what his cap situation is and regardless of what kind of assets he has at that moment. Neither would Sam Presti, or Daryl Morey, or Pat Riley. Based on their idea of what a player at that position should contribute relative to their contract and its effect on the salary cap, demar is overpaid at nine mil. Hopefully MU thinks this way as well and finds a way to ship him off to one of the fool GMs/organizations.

1. True, but you can compare players to stocks and shares. In that case corporations selling similar products are valued through statistical comparisons. For players, depending on the team, those comparisons are made using advanced stats, traditional stats, analytics, etc.,

2. I have to disagree with you here. There's a massive gap between Presti, Buford and Morey vs Riley. Riley would pay market price for a 9 million dollar player, however, he has the convenience of having talent taking pay cuts to win. Furthermore, Florida (heat), and Texas (Spurs, Rockets) have great tax rates. That completely changes the math.

Furthermore, stating Demar is overpaid is not enough. Xixak clearly explained how he got to his assessment of market value at 8-11 mill. You have not clearly explained why Demar is not of that value. In your eyes, what should be Demar's market value, and how did you come to that conclusion? Without fully understanding where you're coming from this thread is going to go around in circles.

For the record, I feel that Demar IS overpaid. I think that the Tyreke contract is an outlier and that OJ Mayo's contract is a much better comparison. Why is Tyreke's contract so high? Demar, OJ, and Tyreke are almost the same player. I suspect it's tied to NOLA being a small market, overpaying to secure a particular talent. If you take NOLA out of the market comparison (assuming they were only interested in Tyreke) Demar is a lot closer to an 8 mill player than a 9 mill. It's small, but those small overpayments add up.

First of all, he DOES have a single market value because there is only one market. The teams that would only offer 5M are offering UNDER market value because they have NO chance of actually signing the player. That's like saying someone who would only pay $20 for an IPad determines its value. No, what determines its value are the people willing to pay the price that its being sold for. This is true for stocks, most goods and athlete contracts.

If HALF the league would pay him what we did or more, then it made sense to extend him and actually SAVED us money. If he would've tested the market he would've been offered more than what we gave him (using what you JUST said) and we'd have to pony up even more dollars to re-sign him.

Enough with the insults. Lots of people obviously disagree with you and you aren't "right". You have an opinion, which you've stated. Respect the opinion of others.

---

Besides, in my opinion, your logic is wrong. Using your logic, lets say that there's a company that is offering penny-stocks and there's only 10 shares of the stock available, but lots of people want to buy it (for various reasons, some legit, some perceived, some speculative based on future performance, etc...). If I end up offering $100 per share for it (because I really want it and have the funds available), then $100 is the fair market value for that penny-stock, by your logic. However, there's no real logic or justification to warrant that valuation - I simply overpaid for it because I wanted it and had the money to spend. Taking the winning bid from a S&D situation is not an accurate way to determine the worth of the asset. Yes the forces of S&D are at work, but a $100 bid for a penny-stock would be an extreme overpayment no matter how you slice it. That's the side of coin that you're not factoring in when it comes to DeRozan and the posters who feel that he's overpaid.

You also aren't factoring in the opportunity cost, which is magnified when a team has limited funds to spend. Yes S&D will boost a player's league-wide determination of worth, but there comes a point when you look at the cost attached to a particular player and have to ask yourself as a GM: "am I better spending this money on another player, or multiple players?". Your argument is in too much of a DeRozan vacuum.

I'm not comparing basketball players in general to an iPad, I'm talking about ONE player, DeRozan.

Maybe a better example is a limited edition car being auctioned off. The highest bidder sets the value not people that don't want the item lmao.

And what you said about Buford, Presti, Riley and Morey is an assumption.

Allow me to take a stab here....in the context of setting a value to a basketball player here one cannot compare the value of inanimate objects/goods like a IPad or a particular model of car to that of a particular player. Major reason: everyone knows the content and capability of said inanimate object and as long as it is guaranteed against mechanical defect one typically gets what one pays for. The only variable is the number of similar objects available for sale at any given time (supply & demand). DD (and I only use him since he is the topic here) I hope you can see is different not only compared to Tyreke but also inanimate objects and has many variables in his capability profile. Also he has probably a smart agent who uses all manner of tactics to inflate the asking price including creating faux demand. A GM willing to pay him much more than a significant majority may also be swayed by his own special circumstances for the need of a SG than his counterparts and also the possibilty of disregard for the CAP threshold so important fiscally for the vast majority. These are all pollutants to the classic definition of "market value".

All to say, more often than not one can only arrive at a fairly arbitrary value (not market value) when discussing the worth of a basketball player. eg.LBJ is probably market value worth about 40 million $/season (I just pulled that number). but because of caps will never make that.

I won't get involved (I am having flashbacks to Econ 101, oh the humanity!) other than to make one comment: keep in mind, the market price of a thing and value of a thing are not necessarily the same thing. For many reasons, I may value a good more than another party or, for many other reasons, I may value a thing much less. If enough others value a thing more than me so that the market price (exchange value) goes above my valuation, I simpy won't buy the good. The market price of a thing represents its exchange value in that specific time and place but doesn't necessarily equate to the value that thing has to me (I may be willing to pay more or less). Anyone who has ever bought or sold a house will recognize this immediately.

Given that attempting to objectively value NBA players is exceedingly difficult and fraught with uncertainties, the fact that some people feel a player is overpaid while others think he is underpaid is not surprising.

Note too that the CBA imposes various rules that affect contracts. The market price of any given player can, for all intents and purposes, bear no relation to his value to any given team at any given time. For example, Gay's current deal was not arrived at by the law of supply and demand, it was arrived at through the machinations of an artificial NBA market constrained by various restrictions and rules.

From Wikipedia: "Market value is the price at which an asset would trade in a competitive auction setting."

In other words, the price of something in a free and open market.

The intrinsic value of something will vary depending on the eyes looking at it, along with other factors. The same house will have a different price depending on where it is located, but the market value in whatever location is determined by what price someone will pay for it. The intrinsic value may be more or less. If identical houses come on the market in similar locations, and all sell for less than you paid for your house, the value of your house will go down.

Demar's value goes down when there are players of his ability available for less money. If those players would not come to Toronto, then they are not comparable. If you have to pay those players more than you paid for Demar, then you have made a great purchase, by signing Demar to a long term contract. If a better player than Demar will come to Toronto for less money, then you over paid for Demar.

Demar's contract does not exist in isolation. It's value can only be compared to the contracts you might have been able to get. If no other players of Demar's abilities were available, then there are no comparables.

Having said that, I like the idea of valuing players according to their win shares. Of course, this will change every time there is a roster change.

I won't get involved (I am having flashbacks to Econ 101, oh the humanity!) other than to make one comment: keep in mind, the market price of a thing and value of a thing are not necessarily the same thing. For many reasons, I may value a good more than another party or, for many other reasons, I may value a thing much less. If enough others value a thing more than me so that the market price (exchange value) goes above my valuation, I simpy won't buy the good. The market price of a thing represents its exchange value in that specific time and place but doesn't necessarily equate to the value that thing has to me (I may be willing to pay more or less). Anyone who has ever bought or sold a house will recognize this immediately.

Given that attempting to objectively value NBA players is exceedingly difficult and fraught with uncertainties, the fact that some people feel a player is overpaid while others think he is underpaid is not surprising.

Note too that the CBA imposes various rules that affect contracts. The market price of any given player can, for all intents and purposes, bear no relation to his value to any given team at any given time. For example, Gay's current deal was not arrived at by the law of supply and demand, it was arrived at through the machinations of an artificial NBA market constrained by various restrictions and rules.

I'm fully aware of the bold.

- But I've shown that DeMar's market price justifies his 9M contract, by showing comparable players (OJ Mayo and Tyreke) who make slightly less or slightly more.

- I've also shown through win shares that DeMar's value justifies his 9M contract as well (and that was LAST YEAR when he made 3M, and assuming he never improves again as a player).

Jimicliff just keeps repeating that DeMar isn't worth 9M but has no substance to back it up other than wild assumptions like "Presti wouldn't give him that deal". (The funny thing is I think Presti would gladly take another scorer like DeMar for that price tag at age 23, but that's not the point).

- But I've shown that DeMar's market price justifies his 9M contract, by showing comparable players (OJ Mayo and Tyreke) who make slightly less or slightly more.

- I've also shown through win shares that DeMar's value justifies his 9M contract as well (and that was LAST YEAR when he made 3M, and assuming he never improves again as a player).

Jimicliff just keeps repeating that DeMar isn't worth 9M but has no substance to back it up other than wild assumptions like "Presti wouldn't give him that deal". (The funny thing is I think Presti would gladly take another scorer like DeMar for that price tag at age 23, but that's not the point).

I don't think he's worth it because he's a 2 who can't shoot and doesn't defend; I thought we all knew this so I wasn't explicit.

For the record, I feel that Demar IS overpaid. I think that the Tyreke contract is an outlier and that OJ Mayo's contract is a much better comparison. Why is Tyreke's contract so high? Demar, OJ, and Tyreke are almost the same player. I suspect it's tied to NOLA being a small market, overpaying to secure a particular talent. If you take NOLA out of the market comparison (assuming they were only interested in Tyreke) Demar is a lot closer to an 8 mill player than a 9 mill. It's small, but those small overpayments add up.

The reason Tyreke is so overpaid is because he was a RFA and NOLA needed to overpay in order to get Sacramento to not match. OJ was not restricted and got fair market value. Derozan sits in between them because we extended him, which let us avoid overpaying (i.e. Tyreke) when he got to RFA, but doesn't let us get him as cheap as if he was a UFA (i.e. Mayo). So there was a clear cost saving of around $1.5M per season by extending Demar instead of waiting for him to become a RFA and matching an offer from another team.

I'm not comparing basketball players in general to an iPad, I'm talking about ONE player, DeRozan.

Maybe a better example is a limited edition car being auctioned off. The highest bidder sets the value not people that don't want the item lmao.

And what you said about Buford, Presti, Riley and Morey is an assumption.

But what you're doing are also assumptions. You assume the market value range for DeRozan. Your PERSONAL evaluation of him is that he's worth no less than $8 million and no more than $11 million. This is a pointless argument because there is no right or wrong answer. The concept of underpaying and overpaying all depends on personal expectations of him. Take Iggy as an example and his 4 year, $48 million contract. There will be some people think he's overpaid because he's older now, on the decline, and can't shoot well. There will be other people who think he could be worth more because he does so many other things like passing, rebounding, and defense. Everyone has a different expectation and perception of what players bring to a table, so there is no correct or incorrect answer to the question as to whether Demar's overpaid or underpaid. People will always disagree because people value him different based on different things. There is only a correct answer when there is a 100% consensus. Also, you don't have to insult people just to make a point! "Ok do you have trouble using your brain?" You just come off as an arrogant jerk which you are being right now!

But what you're doing are also assumptions. You assume the market value range for DeRozan. Your PERSONAL evaluation of him is that he's worth no less than $8 million and no more than $11 million. This is a pointless argument because there is no right or wrong answer. The concept of underpaying and overpaying all depends on personal expectations of him. Take Iggy as an example and his 4 year, $48 million contract. There will be some people think he's overpaid because he's older now, on the decline, and can't shoot well. There will be other people who think he could be worth more because he does so many other things like passing, rebounding, and defense. Everyone has a different expectation and perception of what players bring to a table, so there is no correct or incorrect answer to the question as to whether Demar's overpaid or underpaid. People will always disagree because people value him different based on different things. There is only a correct answer when there is a 100% consensus. Also, you don't have to insult people just to make a point! "Ok do you have trouble using your brain?" You just come off as an arrogant jerk which you are being right now!

Would you say OJ Mayo and Tyreke Evans are:

- Around DeMar's range in terms of performance?
- Around the same age?
- Have about the same perceived upside?
- Play the same position?

The answer to all of those should be yes, and considering one of those guys got $8M per and another got $11M it's not hard to envision DeMar being in that range. That's not a personal evaluation, it's looking around the league and using evidence and facts to support my point.

If you look at the rest of the guys in the top 9, they're all considered above average to elite defenders (with the exception of Dunleavy and Crawford, but their OPP PERs are high because they usually play against bench players). If opposing shooting guards are consistently playing below average against him, how does he not defend? Is it just an accident?

Edit: Disclaimer before somebody rips into me. I'm not saying DeMar is an elite defender, but from watching games it's pretty clear he's not getting torched out there and this stat backs that up as well. He does an average to good job on the defensive side of the ball.

If you look at the rest of the guys in the top 9, they're all considered above average to elite defenders (with the exception of Dunleavy and Crawford, but their OPP PERs are high because they usually play against bench players). If opposing shooting guards are consistently playing below average against him, how does he not defend? Is it just an accident?

Edit: Disclaimer before somebody rips into me. I'm not saying DeMar is an elite defender, but from watching games it's pretty clear he's not getting torched out there and this stat backs that up as well. He does an average to good job on the defensive side of the ball.

This is purely based on my own perception and memory, but it seems to me the coaches have tended to hide Demar on whoever the weaker of the wings opposing wings is. They certainly don't go out of there way to assign him to the opposing teams' stronger wing, that's for sure. This would explain some of that PER stat.

And after looking at that PER table more closely, i don't think you can draw any meaningful conclusions from it. There are some excellent defenders way down on the list, and, as stated, some total sieves near the top.

I don't think he's worth it because he's a 2 who can't shoot and doesn't defend; I thought we all knew this so I wasn't explicit.

I still don't quite follow you Jimi, but I'm starting to see where you're coming from. If we're not comparing Demar to guys like Tyreke, or OJ Mayo then who should we be comparing him (and his contract) to who?

Primer wrote:

The reason Tyreke is so overpaid is because he was a RFA and NOLA needed to overpay in order to get Sacramento to not match. OJ was not restricted and got fair market value. Derozan sits in between them because we extended him, which let us avoid overpaying (i.e. Tyreke) when he got to RFA, but doesn't let us get him as cheap as if he was a UFA (i.e. Mayo). So there was a clear cost saving of around $1.5M per season by extending Demar instead of waiting for him to become a RFA and matching an offer from another team.

I hear you Primer, but NOLA were bidding against the Kings, who just extended their center, and have a very tight budget. That is still a massive overpay. To me the OJ Mayo contract is a better comparison. Extension or not, from my totally amateur perspective the market value for a player of his ilk is closer to 8 mill than 11. Mind you, it's not the massive overpay that NOLA just did. NOLA just gave the 4th (5th maybe) best player on their team one of their largest contracts.

Could Demar have signed an offer sheet for say 9 mill...maybe, but 11? Only a poorly managed team would do that, and other than NOLA the poorly managed teams generally went for vets (Detroit, Charlotte) or are in full tank mode (Phoenix just traded Scola for Green...what!?). I seriously doubt any of the remaining teams would reach that much for Demar.

or are in full tank mode (Phoenix just traded Scola for Green...what!?).

Actually, that's a great trade for absolutely everybody involved in it. Indiana gets Scola, who makes their bench crazy deep. Scola gets to play for a contender. Phoenix takes Green, but gets a good young defensive prospect with upside in Miles Plumlee and Indiana's 2014 first rounder (well, it's lotto protected, but come on, Indiana isn't gonna be in the lottery this year). If Plumlee doesn't work out this year, Phoenix doesn't exercise the team option. For Plumlee and Green, it's a chance to get minutes on a team and show that they're worth a bigger contract later on (or in Green's case, any contract really).

For a team like Phoenix who knows they're not going to make playoffs, that's a really great payout for Scola, who's not starter quality. A prospect and a pick, and they ate a little crap but Green's contract is hardly so bad that it's going to hurt them longterm - I mean, he's only 3.5 million over each of the next two seasons. And Indiana gets even more vicious.

(now someone tell me why we can't get a first-rounder if we trade Rudy again)

Actually, that's a great trade for absolutely everybody involved in it. Indiana gets Scola, who makes their bench crazy deep. Scola gets to play for a contender. Phoenix takes Green, but gets a good young defensive prospect with upside in Miles Plumlee and Indiana's 2014 first rounder (well, it's lotto protected, but come on, Indiana isn't gonna be in the lottery this year). If Plumlee doesn't work out this year, Phoenix doesn't exercise the team option. For Plumlee and Green, it's a chance to get minutes on a team and show that they're worth a bigger contract later on (or in Green's case, any contract really).

For a team like Phoenix who knows they're not going to make playoffs, that's a really great payout for Scola, who's not starter quality. A prospect and a pick, and they ate a little crap but Green's contract is hardly so bad that it's going to hurt them longterm - I mean, he's only 3.5 million over each of the next two seasons. And Indiana gets even more vicious.

(now someone tell me why we can't get a first-rounder if we trade Rudy again)

You're trying to equate apples to watermelons. Indiana didn't need an SF at all, but latched on to a backup PF that they sorely needed, whose only making $4.5M. If you can present a trade of Rudy, that makes sense for both teams, have at it. Then there might be something useful to talk about. Until then, it's just an incessant, baseless rant.